157 Responses

It looks great, Jen. Looking at the shadow from the powerpole, it looks as though one of the silver linings is that you've been able to position the house on the section at a good angle for the sun. And All That Space for the littlies to run around in is fabulous.

Note that this govt is applying the same pressure to other Councils to sell or mortgage their assets to make up for other funding options which the govt refuses to allow. Christchurch is just the biggest prize, with its substantial asset base eyed up by lazy investors accustomed to a diet of pork.

The section is perfect for the house sunwise. The front door faces the road. The big bay window faces north. All exactly as it ws in Avonside, except in Avonside, the property to the north side had subsequently been developed, and so the bay actually faced a big fence & trees. So we've been telling Bob (and ourselves) that the house is finally returning to its original setting - surrounded by lots of space on all sides. Just as in 'The Little House".

I thought covenants were a private thing. That is, the seller sells the land but with conditions on it's use. Hence Sutton can't do much about them.

It's a pity there was no developer smart enough to target those who wanted to move houses. They could have set up a subdivision and charged a premium on the land simply because it was the only new development that allowed old houses.

I thought that was one of the problems the HayHaywoods had when looking for land? I thought it was really difficult in the city, which was why they ended up farther afield. Then again, my thinking can be pie in the sky { ;)

Covenants are a plague on most subdivisions here, but people must like living in Stepford because people buy the land and houses. I think the answer lies with the city council approving subdivisions that impose restrictive covenants. Cera has such wide powers it could override covenants - if it wanted to.

It would seem to an untutored eye that a single section among established houses would be possible to find but then you would have council consent hurdles to cross -- and knowing the CCC that wouldn't be easy. A good-sized section with no land problems at a reasonable price (land is way overpriced in Christchurch) is hard to find in an appealing area.

What really gets me about the covenants is that they impose the very opposite of sustainability on their occupants: newish cars, no space for compost heaps or chickens, no trees that grow too big. Yet the submitters' consensus seems to be for a green rebuild of the central city.

Choice is what is needed -- for those who like subdivision life and for those who do not.

Very sorry for the radio silence, folks. I have been snowed under -- hope to post a proper update soon. But many thanks for all the erudite and witty comments...

Vita Cochran wrote:

Can you move the apple tree too? Or take a graft of it, best apples ever… Good luck

Very nice to meet you at last, Vita!

I took 20 cuttings of the apple tree -- all of which seem to have perished. But I do have seeds. Peasgood Nonesuch is a terrific apple (the name says it all really). Jennifer and I have lived with a Peasgood Nonesuch tree our whole marriage -- it would be hard to go without.

It had to be chopped down to move the house, but at least we managed to save the weeping elm.

JacksonP wrote:,

Roger Sutton: “There’s only been about 50 people approaching us wanting to move their houses”.

Jen and I were told only 15 (we checked 15, not 50) -- so I wonder if there's been a mishearing here. Most people in "repairable" houses have yet to settle their insurance so wouldn't be in a position to move.

Hebe wrote:

Choice is what is needed -- for those who like subdivision life and for those who do not.

My sentiments exactly.

Dr Eric Crampton from the Department of Economics and Finance at the University of Canterbury has an interesting analysis of the covenants issue here:

It seems to me that covenants are going to bequeath an urban planning nightmare to the future of Christchurch/Canterbury. I'm envisaging a two-year freeze on covenants for any new (not already existing) subdivisions.

Can someone direct Roger Sutton to PublicAddress, please. He would find out a lot about Christchurch and its citizens' concerns here. Then he wouldn't have to act so surprised on television.

If only. While it's no thanks to CERA, the story here has a happy ending, unlike most of the poor worn-down souls on Facebook who must hang on every rumour in the hope of some relief from their wretched uncertainty.

A brilliant media coup by the Hay/Haywoods. And what hopeless minders Sutton appears to have, that they'd fuss over his increasingly silly faux Beethoven hairstyle* while putting him on TV in his ideological undies.

*Bet you they do. These are probably the same folks whose market research tells them that Grizz Wyllie is second most trusted after St Rog.